There are 766 comments on the
411mania.com
story from May 14, 2014, titled James Safechuck Claims Michael Jackson Kept Him Out Of School To Molest Him.
In it, 411mania.com reports that:

James Safechuck Claims Michael Jackson Kept Him Out Of School To Molest Him Posted by Joseph Lee on 05.14.2014 Some more details on the accusation... TMZ reports that James Safechuck has provided more details on his claim that Michael Jackson molested him as a child.

<quoted text>I see your point but to me, Michael Jackson was much worse. Of course, Roman Polanski will have to live with his actions for the rest of his life no matter how many times he apologizes. I can imagine that Polanski did seek professional help for his illness. The clown did not. They are two different people. Michael did suffer horrible abuse as a child. However, he was a serial child molester. I do not know what Roman Polanski does today. He could still have more victims but I do not believe that is the case. I know he loved Sharon Tate and was in a deep depression over her senseless murder. Like I said, it wouldn't excuse what he did but the circumstances with each case is not the same for every person. If Polanski's victim can forgive him, that is that best he could hope for.What else would some people expect him to do at this point?I really hope the rumors of Polanski with two young girls in Southeast Asia is false but if they are true, then Roman Polanski should be charged and sent to prison.

Years ago, I read an interview with Polanski. He did not apologize for his actions, at that time. He tried to justify his behavior by claiming she was "almost 14." He didn't think there was anything wrong with bedding a 13-year-old or 14-year-old girl. Nastassja Kinski tried to justify her "relationship" with Polanski, shortly after the movie "Tess" was released. That's two people too many. Obviously, he has a pattern.

<quoted text> Why do say that's worse when it happens to be a statement of fact?Seems to me that you have some pretty severe problems handling the fact that virtually all the alleged "victims" DO want money.

Samantha's mother wanted Polanski put into prison. Gavin's mother never tried to get a dime from Jackson. Let's hear your next excuse for child molesters.

<quoted text>If you believe that about Woody Allen and Gary Glitter, you live in a bubble of total ignorance.

Maybe I should have been more clear. Woody Allen and Gary Glitter are total scum of the earth like the lesser known celebrity child molesters like Roy Harper. Besides, the Europeans are apparently cracking down on some of the biggest pedophiles in the UK and elsewhere. Jimmy Page, David Bowie and Pete Townshend live in England and were not on their list. They were not raided nor were they arrested in any sting operation. I've never heard of Jimmy Savile before he croaked because I am American. We do not have the BBC here. Savile was creepy and so is that fruitcake, Gary Glitter. But whatever...

<quoted text>Years ago, I read an interview with Polanski. He did not apologize for his actions, at that time. He tried to justify his behavior by claiming she was "almost 14." He didn't think there was anything wrong with bedding a 13-year-old or 14-year-old girl. Nastassja Kinski tried to justify her "relationship" with Polanski, shortly after the movie "Tess" was released. That's two people too many. Obviously, he has a pattern.

Yes, it is. However, that was over thirty-five years ago. People rarely even discussed pedophilia like they do now. The question is: did Polanski change his attitude and acknowledge his victim?

<quoted text>And the other book contained only 10% of imagery. What was no appalling about that one? NOTHING. Get A Life.

You are trying to make excuses for a books of nude and seminude children. The photos were photographed by pedophiles, the books were edited by pedophiles, and they are recommended for pedophile by pedophiles.

<quoted text>You are trying to make excuses for a books of nude and seminude children. The photos were photographed by pedophiles, the books were edited by pedophiles, and they are recommended for pedophile by pedophiles.

Please stop lowering your own standard, for pedo enabling.

Those books were out of circulation when MJ had them and they were collector art books. A pedophile wrote Alice in Wonderland but that never stopped most people of having read the book. Your reasoning is irrational.

<quoted text>Those books were out of circulation when MJ had them and they were collector art books. A pedophile wrote Alice in Wonderland but that never stopped most people of having read the book. Your reasoning is irrational.

When I learned Lewis Carroll was a pedophile, I decided it was a book people should not read. At least it does not contain nude photos of Alice.

Those out-of-circulation books are collected by pedophiles. Do you consider it art when a young child is posing nude?

<quoted text>Those books were out of circulation when MJ had them and they were collector art books. A pedophile wrote Alice in Wonderland but that never stopped most people of having read the book. Your reasoning is irrational.

I would imagine it is no longer legal to make such books, especially in the United States of America. The fact still remains that those books were made by pedophiles for pedophiles and were in Jackson's possession. By claiming they were out of circulation only further strengthens that Jackson was very fond of those naked boy books, and didn't want to part company with them under any circumstances.

<quoted text>There is a difference between art and photography but you are too ignorant and biased to be aware of that.

If you think books of nude and seminude children are mere "art" when the children were photographed by pedophiles, the book was edited by pedophiles, and they are recommended by pedophiles for other pedophiles, I'm curious to know if you own them. If you say "yes", I'd like to know why.

<quoted text>If you think books of nude and seminude children are mere "art" when the children were photographed by pedophiles, the book was edited by pedophiles, and they are recommended by pedophiles for other pedophiles, I'm curious to know if you own them. If you say "yes", I'd like to know why.

I don't own them but even if I did that still wouldn't make me a pedophile.You choose to forget those books were gifts to MJ

<quoted text> Why do say that's worse when it happens to be a statement of fact?Seems to me that you have some pretty severe problems handling the fact that virtually all the alleged "victims" DO want money.

Were you side-eyeing Sandusky's accusers when they sued Penn State for damages? Probably not. Sandusky never wrote "Billie Jean".

<quoted text>I don't own them but even if I did that still wouldn't make me a pedophile.You choose to forget those books were gifts to MJ

If someone sent me a book of nude boys as a gift I'd burn them and never speak to that person againYou have a man who engaged in hundreds of one-on-one sleepovers with young boys while possessing literature that's popular among pedophiles + a nude photo of one of his special friends...6 accusers, several more witnesses...multimillion dollar payoffs...and you STILL can't put 2 and 2 together?I'm stunned by this level of delusion. Was a Thriller really that good? Jesus.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.